Slashdot Mirror


Microbes That Keep Us Healthy Starting To Die Off

Dr_Ken writes with a quote from Scientific American: "The human body has some 10 trillion human cells—but 10 times that number of microbial cells. So what happens when such an important part of our bodies goes missing? With rapid changes in sanitation, medicine and lifestyle in the past century, some of these indigenous species are facing decline, displacement and possibly even extinction. In many of the world's larger ecosystems, scientists can predict what might happen when one of the central species is lost, but in the human microbial environment—which is still largely uncharacterized—most of these rapid changes are not yet understood. 'This is the next frontier and has real significance for human health, public health and medicine,' says Betsy Foxman, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor. Meanwhile, each new generation in developed countries comes into the world with fewer of these native populations. 'They're actually missing some component of their microbiota that they've evolved to have,' Foxman says."

260 comments

  1. If we evolved to have them... by Pteraspidomorphi · · Score: 1

    Maybe we no longer need them?

    1. Re:If we evolved to have them... by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think its more that we are using more external means to stay healthy than just not needing these at all.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    2. Re:If we evolved to have them... by JDeane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was thinking the same thing.

      There may be a downside to all this though, from what I understand of digestion and our immune system, it seems to me that when you lose X amount of microbes then you will end up with more of a different microbe that may breed much faster due to lack of competition.

    3. Re:If we evolved to have them... by caramelcarrot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whether or not we "need" them can only be judged retrospectively, and not after a fairly sudden (in evolutionary terms) change in environment before the consequences have worked out - us having evolved to have them would probably indicate that they give some sort of advantage to not having them.

    4. Re:If we evolved to have them... by maxume · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Maybe, but you wouldn't be real happy if I cut off one of your legs (That is, maybe they are disappearing due to factors that are sort of external to 'ideal' functioning of our current bodies).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:If we evolved to have them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and I always wondered why people cut off the ends of their penis.

    6. Re:If we evolved to have them... by bretticus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Basically. If you somehow lost them all in the same proportion, this might not happen. The general problem is that you take, for example, an antibiotic like clindamycin that selectively kills anaerobes of the gut but not Clostridium Difficile. Now all of a sudden you have created a selective pressure that favors the growth of C.diff, and you develop an infection with pseudomembranous colitis.

    7. Re:If we evolved to have them... by riverat1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some of us didn't have any say in the matter.

    8. Re:If we evolved to have them... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We do not need them... We ARE them!

      They say that wars, hate and greed will kill humanity.
      But I believe, that it’s the human arrogance will kill us.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:If we evolved to have them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe we no longer need them?

      After all, what's really wrong with going into fatal allergic convulsions just because someone waves a bag of peanuts in your general direction?

    10. Re:If we evolved to have them... by selven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that the consequences will never "work out" - change is happening fast and will not slow down, so there will always be new data and new issues to worry about.

    11. Re:If we evolved to have them... by BikeHelmet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well lets see... allergies in the western world are on the rise, and people here tend to rely on medicine to solve sicknesses rather than their immune systems.

      I recall hearing that the appendix was a safe haven for some good bacteria. After a purge from antibiotics, it replenishes your gut with the good stuff. Complete speculation, but this decline might leave us with more restricted diets and weaker immune systems in a couple generations.

    12. Re:If we evolved to have them... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Well lets see... allergies in the western world are on the rise, and people here tend to rely on medicine to solve sicknesses rather than their immune systems.

      Yeah. I miss the good old days of fixing strep throat with a double-shot of whiskey and stolid manliness.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    13. Re:If we evolved to have them... by radtea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      us having evolved to have them would probably indicate that they give some sort of advantage to not having them.

      Or that it is not worth the cost of getting rid of them.

      In any case, this is one of the most innuendo-laced collections of speculative bullshit /. has linked in a long time, and that's saying something. Everything in the article is prefaced with "may be" and "could be" and "possibly". Well, the Earth may be in danger because it is possible it could be hit by a low-albedo asteroid tomorrow. Doesn't that scare you and make you want to pay attention to me? If not, why are you paying attention to article?

      The scare-mongering /. headline is a nice example of the evolution of lies: researches say, "This is an interesting topic", Scientific American says, "This may be happening and it may be scary!" and /. says, "Things that definitely keep us healthy are definitely dieing off!"

      "Nerds" used to refer to overly pedantic people who cared about the truth. I guess /. isn't news for those people any more.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    14. Re:If we evolved to have them... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      A lot of people in here are comparing living to 35 with natural bacteria or living to 100+. In reality it's more of living with natural bacteria or getting severally sick anytime something goes around because you have a weaker immune system. They have already shown that overly clean people tend to raise kids with weaker immune systems, greater chance of auto-immune disorders, allergies, and get sick more often and with worse symptoms.

      I guess my answer is I would rather live to 100 with bacteria than be sick all the time with allergies and auto immune disorders and die at 35 because I was overly clean.

    15. Re:If we evolved to have them... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      and I always wondered why people cut off the ends of their penis.

      They almost never do - even the rare person who willingly does that kind of thing almost always gets someone else to do it.

    16. Re:If we evolved to have them... by JDeane · · Score: 1

      What your saying is what I bumblingly was trying to spew forth from my medical ignorance!

      How dare you enlighten me !!! lol

      P.S. Thank you!

      I remember seeing a TV show dealing with a patient who actually died from taking an antibiotic, well not the medication in specific but the stomach doing what you said and the resulting infection (is it an infection if its a native to the intestine?)

      At any rate the patient ended up dying from what people normally have inside them so it was shocking to me to think that lacking some things living in my gut can actually kill me. Does this mean I'm symbiotic?

    17. Re:If we evolved to have them... by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Informative

      There may be a downside to all this though, from what I understand of digestion and our immune system, it seems to me that when you lose X amount of microbes then you will end up with more of a different microbe that may breed much faster due to lack of competition.

      There was recently a story about how people with a high-fat, high-sugar diet have different microbes in their stomach that allow them to absorb a higher % of calories from those fat/sugar than a more moderate diet. And that it could change as fast as 16 hours - so if you decide to go for yogurt and vegetables one entire day, and then eat a high fat carbohydrate laden meal the next, your body wouldn't absorb nearly as many calaries as it would have if you ate the previous day. Which may hold the key for some weight loss.

      http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1938023,00.html

    18. Re:If we evolved to have them... by PakProtector · · Score: 2, Interesting

      God forbid we stop prescribing medicines all willy-nilly when they're not necessary just to quite down parents and belly-achers.

      I go to the Doctor when it's serious: i.e., it's not getting better, it's getting worse, it's life-threatening or infected. I do not go to the doctor every time my throat hurts. That's just silly.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    19. Re:If we evolved to have them... by JDeane · · Score: 1

      If I had not already posted I would have moded this one insightful or informative.

      Fascinating how much influence the little buggers have...

    20. Re:If we evolved to have them... by shentino · · Score: 1

      In other words, there's already experimenting. WE are the lab rats.

    21. Re:If we evolved to have them... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I do not go to the doctor every time my throat hurts. That's just silly.

      In reply to my post where I specifically mentioned strep throat? You're a moron. My mom caught it back before antibiotics were common in her part of the world. She belly- (and throat-) ached her way into rheumatic fever, which turned into permanent heart damage.

      Yeah, it's stupid to seek antibiotics for a cold or flu. It's equally stupid to avoid them when you have a bacterial infection.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    22. Re:If we evolved to have them... by bretticus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No problem :)

      As for your question, infection implies pathological invasion of the host. Otherwise you are merely colonized with the organism. For example, many people have MRSA present inside their nose, but that doesn't mean they are infected. And yes, you do have a symbiotic relationship with your bacteria, especially the skin and gut. Just have a look at wikipedia for lots of fun facts.

    23. Re:If we evolved to have them... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      With hospitals and medicine, people that are 'supposed' to die stay alive and are able to replicate. That means that weaker genes do no dissapear from the gene pool.

      In other words: reverse evolution, or maybe even no evolution anymore...

      We, as humans, have taken evolution into our own hands and with that power comes great responsibility. But with cloning techniques coming around the corner, this might actually even be the most ethical solution.

      Food for thought....

      --
      Here be signatures
    24. Re:If we evolved to have them... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Actually the reverse is probably true. A human generation lasts 20 years. A microbial generation lasts anywhere from 2 seconds to 2 hours, depending on the species. This allows them to find new chemical pathways to digest all sorts of chemicals, and secreting stuff we can digest.

      Even though there are massive advantages to having a big body, fast adaptation to new chemicals is not one of those advantages. You'd need a couple ten thousand generations at the very least to learn to digest a new molecule, and certainly millions of them for the tougher ones. There haven't even been 3000 generations since civilization began, and there's been fewer than 100 generations that have known about chemistry (and barely 2 or 3 that have had to deal with chemically prepared food). So we've evolved to support bacteria in our colon that massively expand the number of chemicals that we can digest, and that evolve much, much faster than we do (it's what Darwin's "useless organ", the appendix, is for).

      So chances are that we need those bacteria (or at least, one of them, the trouble is telling which one) more than ever.

      Of course, we could fix this by (slowly) switching entirely to chemically prepared food, or by massively lowering the number of humans alive, and forcing a number of people to live under "native" conditions. Then trading some food with them (but not much), and other than that prevent any contact at all with those populations.

      Since we all know how Americans are responding to the fact that some people only have emergency health care (apparently only illegal aliens), any proposition to force millions of people to live in between snakes, monkeys and tons of poisonous plants without any kind of health care (giving a paper cut a 30% mortality rate due to what's called "cold fire", not that they'll have paper at all though) are not going to collect a lot of steam, no matter how "natural" that way of life is. I seriously doubt that forcing a population into a situation that gives them an expected lifespan of 25 years is going to work.

      And obviously, since so many idiots seem hell-bent on defending their fantasy version of "natural lifestyles", they will vigorously attack anything that shows people anything remotely resembling a real natural lifestyle. They might even use violence due to the "fundamental unfairness" that nature obviously will apply to these "natives". Also, these natives, if history is any guide, will attack and kill one another. Genocides will be something that occurs every few years (if we're lucky once per decade), and I seriously doubt these natives will give any more rights to women than any other barbarian tribe ever did. Hell the treatment women get in native tribes makes bin laden look like Don Juan. Not that the treatment of men is so very much better.

    25. Re:If we evolved to have them... by camperslo · · Score: 1

      There was recently a story about how people with a high-fat, high-sugar diet have different microbes in their stomach that allow them to absorb a higher % of calories from those fat/sugar than a more moderate diet.

      Some have made quite a fuss over the methane coming from cows. Considering how many people there are on this planet, it probably makes more sense to focus on the methane coming from people.
      The mix of intestinal flora affects the amounts of methane and other gases a person produces. Perhaps diet modification and other efforts to affect human floral balance could reduce our contributions of this greenhouse gas.

      The high-corn diet that fattens up feed-lot cattle affects more than their weight (and methane production?). Because of the higher acidity present in corn-fed cattle as compared with range fed, the e-coli they carry adapts. The e-coli adapted to higher acidity is far more of a problem for humans than that from range-fed cattle.

      Maybe it's time that we start thinking of bad diet as another form of pollution.

      http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/9.17.98/cattle_feeding.html

      http://www.nbafoodadvocate.com/corn-fed-cattle-bigger-cows-bigger-e-coli-threat-more-foodborne-illness-1177

      http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6328959.html

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/r24j133q21u1g838/

    26. Re:If we evolved to have them... by yurigoul · · Score: 1

      Well, one of the theories regarding Crohn's disease and UC (both auto-immune bowel diseases) is that those people are missing a parasite. The disease apparently exist mostly/only in countries with high hygienic standards maybe also combined with certain dietary habits.

      They are therefor experimenting with reintroducing certain parasites (and not just bacteria) in the human gut to counter the disease since pumping someone full with hormones or turning someones immune system off has its side effects.

      So if you want side effects of not enough bacteria, this could be one.

    27. Re:If we evolved to have them... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Antibiotics can also damage you permanently. So it's just a matter of picking the lesser evil :).

      If your body is losing the battle, go to the hospital and get help.

      Otherwise, avoid the antibiotics if you can especially the more toxic ones. Some doctors are a lot more "antibiotic/drug happy" than others.

      --
    28. Re:If we evolved to have them... by ChienAndalu · · Score: 1

      that is just your gut instinct telling you this

    29. Re:If we evolved to have them... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You may have tried to go for funny. But you’r actually more true than you might think. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  2. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    am saddened by the death of our microbial overlords (or underlords as the case may be).

    1. Re:I for one... by Kleen13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Innerlords, for gods sake... sigh.. It's Innerlords. Trust me, they punished me last night for my insubordination with 3 day pizza.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    2. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one can always repopulate you colon if you'd like.

    3. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't wash my hands after going to the bathroom.

    4. Re:I for one... by jonamous++ · · Score: 1

      and i won't hate you for that. I'm probably one of the least clean people I know (not un-hygienic, I DO shower; I don't use hand-sanitizer, or wash my hands every time I touch something). I rarely get sick. On the other hand, the nutjobs with the sanitizer seem to be calling out every month.

  3. holy penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHAT A SCOOP!!! I want pictures! Pictures of microorganisms! Where's Parker?

  4. Bought the tshirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have Crohn's, as many news studies are showing it is largely caused by (the major symptoms at least) lack of certain intestinal flora. My sister was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis after they found a large tumour in her intestines. So I for one hope more attention is focused on our little commensural buddies.

    1. Re:Bought the tshirt by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "So I for one hope more attention is focused on our little commensural buddies."

      We should do for them what we should do for any life form we wish to preserve, which is breed them.

      There is no shortage of domestic cattle, but elephants are endangered because humans want to use and eat them yet make little effort to preserve them in quantity.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Bought the tshirt by Tezcat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is no shortage of domestic cattle, but elephants are endangered because humans want to use and eat them yet make little effort to preserve them in quantity.

      I hate to play pedant, but that's a poor analogy. Cattle have been bred to mature quickly; meanwhile the never-fully domesticated Elephants of Africa and India rival humans for their long maturation and gestation periods.

      Microbes, on the other hand, are easy to breed in quantity once you have established their optimal developmental environment. Once we work out what we have inside and around us and what we need, we could conceivably tailor our anti-biotic intake based on our inherited and environmental differences.

      'Intelligently planned' biotic yoghurt supplements may be the next big thing in preventative health care.
      /IANA Micro-biologist

    3. Re:Bought the tshirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This right here.

      Even cloning will help them at this point in time, regardless of the dangers of cloning. ("eggs in one basket" with respect to infections, one will hit all)
      But as long as you keep them safe for at least one generation, that will probably be all that is needed.

      Hell, you could always throw in some increased radiation around some of the clones. Artificial evolution is fine too, we have only been doing it for millennia with very slow, indirect methods, why not just do it more precisely and quicker? Radiation is the biggest reason for most of the evolution throughout the history of everything, random mutations. Some lead to disease, some led to "breakthroughs", some just changed the color of hair / skin / eyes.

      CAPTCHA: irrigate, very appropriate.

    4. Re:Bought the tshirt by Magic5Ball · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Industrializing elephants wouldn't work out so well for the creatures we know as elephants today. 10 of the 12 Bovini are either entirely domesticated or highly endangered, and the Bos taurus of which we have a billion are not viable outside of highly controlled artificial conditions which optimize for milk and steak. For related reasons, the species of chicken and swine which we have in abundance wouldn't be worthwhile to preserve if our primary concern is ecological health or diversity.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    5. Re:Bought the tshirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I for one hope more attention is focused on our little *commensural* buddies.

      Maybe you should let them operate the keyboard, you thick cunt.

    6. Re:Bought the tshirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One of the current brands of "'Intelligently planned' biotic yoghurt supplements" messed up my intestinal flora so badly that I was vomiting with diarrhea for four days, and had to get IV fluids for dehydration. Every person's bacterial population is unique, and artificial attempts to change it will likely leave us worse off than we would be even with the over use of antibiotics.

    7. Re:Bought the tshirt by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I hate to play pedant, but that's a poor analogy. Cattle have been bred to mature quickly; meanwhile the never-fully domesticated Elephants of Africa and India rival humans for their long maturation and gestation periods.

      That's a poor objection to the idea that humans haven't taken care to maintain elephants as a food supply. In fact, you affirm the idea by "objecting". Cattle have been bred. Elephants have not. Much like corn, wheat, pigs, and so on, humans have guided cattle evolution. Humans have not guided elephant evolution (though humans are having an effect on it)

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    8. Re:Bought the tshirt by Tezcat · · Score: 1

      What I meant by 'intelligently planned' was something custom-designed to fit with what you already had and what you needed. The stuff like Yakult is a basic mixture that can replace whatever balance you already had.

    9. Re:Bought the tshirt by left00coaster · · Score: 1

      Breeding microbes to solve this problem only gives rise to others. For example, it's likely that the effort to breed them in a sufficiently controlled manner would require in vitro cultivation. Unfortunately, our symbiotic bacteria are almost certain to develop quite differently when raised outside of their accustomed environment. (After all, they're symbionts.) Thus, to breed them successfully, one would be forced to do it in vivo -- likely by using humans as microbe farms. Now, I don't know about you, but I see potential ethical problems in that strategy.

    10. Re:Bought the tshirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every person's bacterial population is unique, and artificial attempts to change it will likely leave us worse off than we would be even with the over use of antibiotics.

      I have no problems with the first part, but where is the evidence for the rest? Many people have found such supplements useful. How is your bad reaction evident of anything regarding the general populace? And how is it anymore artificial than changing one's diet? Surely that is not a new or uncommon thing for the body to have to cope with.

      If you want to change your diet or take a supplement, of course you should talk to your doctor or do your research first, as it may not be suitable for you. But don't make blanket statements about these things just because of your personal experience.

  5. Easy solution by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just go back to nature, eschew all this horrible modern sanitation and antibiotics, they are all poisoning you. Of course you expected lifespan will be changed from ~80 to about 35, but at least you won't be destroying our precious internal ecosystem. Come on, take one for the team!

            Brett

             

    1. Re:Easy solution by kiatoa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe there is a middle road? Reasonable sanitation (ya know, soap up the groin, armpits and feet when showering and all that) but cut out the obsessive stuff. At work we have little things that you can use to spray your hands with antibacterial solution at the exit from stairwells. People take antibiotics "just in case", and so forth.

      Maybe less really is more sometimes. I.e. there probably is such a thing as being too clean. No need to swing to the other extreme.

      --
      90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
    2. Re:Easy solution by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      If the choice was between keeping my natural microbial defenses and dying by 35, or living to 135 with GPS-trackable nanites, I'd keep what I have and die 100% biological.

      -Oz

    3. Re:Easy solution by Cwix · · Score: 1

      What about non GPS trackable nanites? Are you solely anti nanite, or anti govrnment tracking?

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    4. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Togusa?

    5. Re:Easy solution by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      You're an anti-nanite aren't you? Bastard.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    6. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, how about we study the effects of our technology and how it impacts upon our health and the quality of life that we enjoy. Then when we identify areas where our technology is not yet perfected we can look for better solutions. That way our knowledge base grows and our technology improves. There is a name for it, sci...wait for it...ence!

    7. Re:Easy solution by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      Honestly I am against both. I figure if we are too weak to survive without direct technological intervention, (such as "nanites") we are most likely too weak to survive at all. As for the GPS-tracking, I think anything as sophisticated as tiny robots that float about your body keeping you healthy, would most likely be trackable via some means or another. That being said, if they are trackable, "you" are trackable.

      -Oz

    8. Re:Easy solution by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      So you've had your fillings removed, right?

      (and wtf are you doing on slashdot if you think you can be tracked from somewhere else due to "gps".)

    9. Re:Easy solution by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    10. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you have a gripe against technology in general, not nanites. Do you refuse to drink pasteurized milk or consume cooked foods (possibly in sterile containers)? After all, if you are too weak to survive without this direct technological intervention, you are most likely too weak to survive at all.

    11. Re:Easy solution by spiffydudex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe less really is more sometimes. I.e. there probably is such a thing as being too clean. No need to swing to the other extreme.

      I tend to agree. I am more on the age of thinking, "If i'm not dying(sick in bed), I don't need medicine."

      My mother also raised me this way when I was a crawling around on the ground/toddler. Out of my friends I always seem to be the one that doesn't get sick hardly ever. I don't know if that is a trend means I am special. Perhaps I was exposed to more bacteria on a regular basis when I was young, and therefore my immune system grew stronger. Either way, it is an interesting trend.

    12. Re:Easy solution by glwtta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just go back to nature, eschew all this horrible modern sanitation and antibiotics, they are all poisoning you. Of course you expected lifespan will be changed from ~80 to about 35, but at least you won't be destroying our precious internal ecosystem.

      What a profoundly stupid thing to say. Unless they are used to treat a specific life-threatening infection, antibiotics don't prolong your lifespan. And nobody is saying you shouldn't treat your Bubonic plague to protect your E. coli.

      So yes, you can stop sterilizing your entire environment and taking antibiotics "just in case", and still enjoy the benefits of modern advances in sanitation, medicine and nutrition.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    13. Re:Easy solution by linhares · · Score: 1

      and here I was thinking this was the wonderful yearly x-mas thread having absolutely nothing about government tracking paranoia

    14. Re:Easy solution by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That’s the thing: There is a “too much”. Like with “sanitation“/antibiotics.

      You essentially need that massive amount microbes in your digestive system, to digest your food. They are as much a part of you, as your heart or your brain.
      If you kill them, you kill yourself!

      If you ever had a wrecked digestive system, you know what you are talking about. Not only dose life become really shitty. It even changes your character. And not only as secondary effects. But because your digestive system got just as much neurons as your brain, and the messed up digestion messes with those neurons too.
      Just as you got a protective film on your tongue, and on your whole skin.

      If you kill them off, you basically lose the firewall and part of your PSU. Good luck withstanding the DDOS and botnet shitstorm and the hurricane outside then...

      Sure you can try to recreate protection in form of chemicals and bubble boy bubbles. But what’s the point, if you already got a extremely effective system that’s been in use and improvement since millions, if not billions of years.

      Those who do not understand nature are doomed to recreate it. Badly. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:Easy solution by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Anti-bacterial soaps and cleaners are relatively new where as people lived into their eighties long before they existed.

      In fact, thanks to evolution, those anti-bacterial products are making stronger bacteria. I personally wouldn't want to have to bathe in bleach so I think we should ban them. The benefit as well is that we can cull some of the weak and have some population control.

    16. Re:Easy solution by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just go back to nature, eschew all this horrible modern sanitation and antibiotics, they are all poisoning you. Of course you expected lifespan will be changed from ~80 to about 35, but at least you won't be destroying our precious internal ecosystem. Come on, take one for the team!

              Brett

             

      So many things wrong with this...

      First of all, a large reason our average lifespan is going up is not because everyone is living to 100+. It's because we're eliminating a large amount of infant mortality.

      You're also taking an all-or-nothing kind of approach that's simply idiotic. Nobody is suggesting we do away with modern sanitation and antibiotics... But maybe we don't need antibacterial chemicals built into every single object we touch. Maybe we don't need hand sanitizer stationed every 10 feet. Maybe we don't need to be pumped full of antibiotics every time we get the sniffles.

      And they way you're calling it "our precious internal ecosystem"... You do know what they're talking about, right? This isn't some kind of tree-hugging PETA nonsense... This is about the insides of our bodies. It's about beneficial microbes that we need in order to function properly. Have you ever been on a heavy round of antibiotics that killed off a large amount of your intestinal fauna? It's potentially life-threatening, which is why they'll also have you on some heavy pro-biotics at the same time.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    17. Re:Easy solution by AnotherUsername · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you could just use a little less Lysol, stop taking antibiotics every time you get the sniffles, and not be overly compulsive about washing your hands every time something is touched. Modern sanitation and medicine is good, but there can be too much of a good thing.

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    18. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just use a little less Lysol, stop taking antibiotics every time you get the sniffles, and not be overly compulsive about washing your hands every time something is touched. Modern sanitation and medicine is good, but there can be too much of a good thing.

      You've still described too much of a good thing. All we really need in terms of sanitation is to stay away from human feces. And even that is a bit of a stretch. Composting destroys the bacteria that might cause us harm, and so human faeces is safe to use as a fertilizer after composting. On the other hand, unprocessed faeces is very dangerous to health.

      If I remember my interesting facts, each gram of soil is made up something like 90% bacteria and faeces. And it is perfectly safe, as far as medical statistics are concerned, to eat soil. Yes, there is the odd chance you will find a colony of TB or something in any given gram of soil. On the other hand, there are billions bacterial species in the wild, and very few of them pose any threat, as humans have eaten soil, directly or indirectly, for 300,000 generations. Mammals have eaten soil, directly or indirectly, for millions of years.

      The other major vectors of disease, in history, have been fleas, insects, and non-fecal human propagation.

      One of the major reasons for sanitation in the food industry isn't to protect our health, but to help our food last a few days longer. Cow pox, for example, is a very minor threat, and yet almost every gallon of milk is pasteurized.

    19. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hogs grown for mass consumption are too clean. Once they were moved indoors, they lost their ability to fight disease, and have subsequently been injected with antibiotics incessantly.

      I wonder what happened to THX1138 once he made it to the surface?

    20. Re:Easy solution by udippel · · Score: 1

      May we know your current age?
      Would my guess be correct it is beyond 30?

      (I fully agree with your argument, in general. I don't like the precise numbers, though. I enjoyed my last 18 years.)

    21. Re:Easy solution by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      This is the middle road. Everything you touch is covered with germs. Youre always getting dirty, but you may not recognize it because many naturalists dont realize there is dirt everywhere. Heck, with recycled air your breathing dirtier than being outside.

      >At work we have little things that you can use to spray your hands with antibacterial solution at the exit from stairwells.

      Evolution didnt expect us to spend our days in office buildings. Id rather have the option of using some antibacterial goo than being forced to get your fecal matter and germs on me before I eat.

      >People take antibiotics "just in case", and so forth.

      "People" shouldnt be doing this and I doubt their doctors are prescribing drugs this way. Most likely morons are not finishing their drugs when they are sick and are abusing the system. If anything we need a technological solution here. Make the pills expire faster so people cant hoard them.

    22. Re:Easy solution by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Funny

      if by expire you mean explode, then you've just come up with the coolest idea ever.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    23. Re:Easy solution by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      Evolution is just a process of change. It does not "expect" or anticipate things it ought to do and plan for. Various adaptions succeed and reproduce, passing on the adaption, or not.

    24. Re:Easy solution by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Just go back to nature, eschew all this horrible modern sanitation and antibiotics, they are all poisoning you.

      I'm going to bet that the majority of people will live their entire life without requiring antibiotics. Modern life expectancy probably has a lot more to do with cheap travel leading to properly balanced diets, and just the understanding of germ theory (eg., don't eat off the floor, clean wounds before they get infected, etc.), not to mention improved product safety, continually improving building standards (fewer drafty houses) relatively cheap home heating/cooling, etc.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    25. Re:Easy solution by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      You obviously do not have children and possibly have not suffered the loss of a parent. It's not something you want children to go through if it can possibly be avoided.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    26. Re:Easy solution by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1

      After advice from a professor of dermatology, I have switched from using soap to just washing thoroughly with water, and I have less body odor than I did before I switched. I still use deodorant under my arms - there was a while where it worked well to drop it, but for some reason that changed and I had to re-introduce it.

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    27. Re:Easy solution by rhakka · · Score: 1

      If your immune system was up to snuff, getting some fecal matter and germs on you, in normal concentrations, would not bother you at all, OCD Boy.

      You keep it up to snuff by not using the goo.

      wash your hands. with regular soap. a few times a day and after using the bathroom. Lessen but DO NOT ELIMINATE your contact with potential contaminants as you describe. Dilute but do not remove them.

      So says the guy who's never had the flu. That's not really a credential but it sounds good ;)

    28. Re:Easy solution by PCM2 · · Score: 0, Troll

      If your immune system was up to snuff, getting some fecal matter and germs on you, in normal concentrations, would not bother you at all, OCD Boy.

      Given that the fecal-oral route is a main method of transmission of everything from influenza to e. coli, hepatitis A, cholera, shigella, giardia, clostridium, cryptosporidium, typhoid, and various parasites, just for starters -- and many of these wouldn't exist if they couldn't complete their lifecycles by getting into your mouth via fecal contamination -- I'd say most infectious disease specialists would disagree with you. Some of these agents can get you very sick; a travel doctor once told me that you almost always recover from hepatitis A, but while you're ill you'll feel so awful you'll wish you were never born. Maybe it's just my OCD, but I went ahead and got the vaccine.

      Then again, the nature of your statement leads me to wonder: Just what do you consider to be "normal concentrations" of feces on your hands?

      Wash your hands, people, with soap. Don't worry about what kind of soap it is. The act of rubbing your hands together with a surfactant does more to remove germs from the surface of your skin than antimicrobial chemicals in soap do anyway.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    29. Re:Easy solution by rhakka · · Score: 1

      You can be squeamish about it if you like, but the fact is unless you shoot for a sterile environment, which I would say is a bad idea for your immune system's health (use it or lose it), we are both talking about dealing with an acceptable level of fecal matter and many other contaminants on our persons. I'm simply saying if you wash your hands a few times a day with regular soap, plus when you go to the bathroom, I think that should be plenty. But, you'll get some incidental contact with fecal matter and other contaminants that way I'm sure. Which is good, IMHO.

      I'm not a doctor or anything, but then, most doctors I know are so institutionalized as to look for threats to their weaker patients everywhere and they shoot for damn near sterilization, which is bad for all of us. Ask them about the new crop of staph they built for us sometime. So I don't necessarily think their perspective is the best one either, by and large. They want to win a losing battle.

    30. Re:Easy solution by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Well, I figure we both agree that there's probably no germs you could pick up in your own kitchen or bathroom that washing your hands wouldn't fix. But the idea that you should be exposed to germs so your immune system is strong is a dangerous one. I understand the theory and I agree to a certain extent (send your kids out to play in the dirt) -- but there are lots of germs that you plain don't want to get. They will make you sick, and it won't matter how "healthy" your immune system is.

      As for the antimicrobials, I think telling people not to use them is silly -- because washing your hands regularly will do about the same job. As in, six of one, half a dozen of the other -- you're telling people not to do one thing while you're telling them to do something else that amounts to the same thing. I say, if people want to use Purel instead of Ivory, fine. Me, I find a 30 cent bar of soap stretches my money much further than a little bottle of alcohol gel, but to each his own.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    31. Re:Easy solution by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not a doctor or anything, but then, most doctors I know are so institutionalized as to look for threats to their weaker patients everywhere and they shoot for damn near sterilization, which is bad for all of us. Ask them about the new crop of staph they built for us sometime.

      As for the staph, this is a very complex and fascinating subject, about which we could go on all day. Did you know that the strains of drug-resistant staph that are found in hospitals are found only in hospitals? That is to say, you might find drug-resistant staph out "in the wild," but it will be different strain of bacteria than what you could catch in a hospital. The hospital varieties have adapted to exist within that environment and they are found nowhere else in the world -- but you'll find them in every hospital. Wild stuff.

      At the same time, though it's clear that hospital sterilization practices are what have put evolutionary pressure on staph bacteria to create these strains, I think I'd still rather doctors were shooting for "damn near sterilization" in the operating theater when it's my turn to go under the knife. As I say, it's a very complex problem that's nowhere close to being solved.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    32. Re:Easy solution by rhakka · · Score: 1

      there is a difference though. removing germs from your body does not selectively breed them for enhanced resistance to antimicrobials, and most people do not wash their hands like a doctor so the removal is not perfect. and I think that's a good thing.

  6. Dumb logic by SlantyBard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The logic doesn't follow entirely. Just because something's been there or done a certain way in the past doesn't make it necessary for the future. Clearly you don't want to be born with everything your parents have. That's why we put antibiotics in the eyes of every newborn in developed countries. The antibiotics prevent chlamydial/gonorrheal blindness in newborns. That being said, it's something to think about and evaluate scientifically - so far it's very early to make any decisions about this stuff given the real lack of data.

    1. Re:Dumb logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The logic (that microbes *necessary* for our health are dying out, opening up the possibility of resultant health consequences -- no conclusions drawn, just the statement of a situation and an attempt to outline the range of possible consequences) follows just fine.

      Reading a little too quickly and a little too topically, you don't seem to be following very well at all.

  7. No antibiotics for me by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless I feel like I'm at death's door, I do not go to the doctor. I'll bet most of the people who are missing these microbes have been exposed to a lot of antibiotics. This may also explain why staph infections are turning deadly, and I know it's why Western kids have lots of strange allergies.

    The Hadza are the last hunter gatherers in the world, probably. They seem to be doing alright. (Not saying I'd give up my lifestyle, but there are lessons to be learned.)

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

    1. Re:No antibiotics for me by maxume · · Score: 1

      Staph infections aren't a great deal more deadly than they have been in the past, they are less treatable with antibiotics than they were when we first started using antibiotics.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:No antibiotics for me by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Funny, a family friend of ours, who contracted antibiotic resistant staph in his spinal column following surgery, would tend to disagree, given he had to lay there for quite some time with open wounds that had to be debrided and drained. Thank god vancomycin-resistant staph is still fairly uncommon, as otherwise the infection may have killed him.

    3. Re:No antibiotics for me by lawpoop · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unless I feel like I'm at death's door, I do not go to the doctor.

      I hope you never get cancer. If you finally go to the doctor when you fell like you on death's door, it will be too late. If caught early enough, most cancers are easily treatable.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:No antibiotics for me by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Alright by some standard, anyway. Towards the beginning of the story, they mention a man who has lost half his teeth. No thanks, I'm happy for modern dentistry. Later on we read this nugget:

      About a fifth of all [Hadza] babies die within their first year, and nearly half of all children do not make it to age 15.

      That may be your ideal, but for me there are advantages to modernity.

      Idolizing the Hadza is like those people who never take their pets to the vet, because the animals don't go to the vet in the wild. It's true animals don't go to the vet in the wild, but they also have shorter life spans.

      Interesting article, btw. Glad you posted it. But doctors do good things.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:No antibiotics for me by vakuona · · Score: 1

      I have thought about the allergies thing, and whilst it might be that the sterile environments lead to increased allergies, it might just be that back in the day, we didn't test for allergies, so we had lots of unexplained deaths in infants. Nowadays, kids are assessed for allergies pretty much on birth, so we can avoid exposing them to allergens rather earlier, and thus there is the appearance of an allergy epidemic.

    6. Re:No antibiotics for me by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The reason why staph infections can be worse now then in the past is two fold. The first is because hospitals are pushed to be super-clean environments. This first part allows very hardy bacteria to thrive where they normally wouldn't. The second is when antibiotics are given, a lot of people don't take them to the full duration. This second part causes a lot of issues as people are building on top of the chain.

      As well the prevelence of anti-bacterial hand washes/wipes/dish soaps/etc are highly damaging to a safe environment. If you goto a hospital or doctors office you won't find antibacterial washes, you'll find microbicide. Let me say this first, thanks a lot flapping heads(I mean sales guys) you're fuckin' us all.

      Oh allergies? Yeah. Get yourself outside and eat some dirt. It does a body good.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:No antibiotics for me by maxume · · Score: 1

      If it had happened prior to the invention of antibiotics, he would likely be dead rather than glad it was only resistant to some antibiotics. The point is that the antibiotic resistance is the thing that makes it deadly, and it is a new thing resulting from us even having antibiotics, the infections were just as deadly when we couldn't treat them at all.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:No antibiotics for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you pretty much missed the previous poster's point: staph was deadly before antibiotics and its deadliness is about the same level today if you don't get antibiotics or have a resistant strain.

      In other words, if it killed you in a week back then, it (in those special cases) kills you in a week today, too. It's not a catchier or faster-killing strain.

    9. Re:No antibiotics for me by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Unless I feel like I'm at death's door, I do not go to the doctor

      What about cancer, cavities, hypertension and such?

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    10. Re:No antibiotics for me by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      I hope you never get cancer. If you finally go to the doctor when you fell like you on death's door, it will be too late. If caught early enough, most cancers are easily treatable.

      And yet, if you go early enough, good luck convincing a doctor to run those tests for your non-specific tiredness and pains.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    11. Re:No antibiotics for me by adbge · · Score: 1

      Unless your family friend had a staph infection a couple hundred years ago and then another recently, I'm not sure how this anecdote is really pertinent.

    12. Re:No antibiotics for me by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      It's not. I missed the point. But thanks for being the third poster to point it out. I wonder who the fourth will be?

    13. Re:No antibiotics for me by velja27 · · Score: 1

      The man who has lost half of his teeth is 60 or something years old and in modern society rare are the people that don't lose teeth at all most of them get braces with new artificial teeth. Well the children that live will pass on the genes that helped them live and thus improve the generations to come. Their live span is also shortened by interaction with other animals and not only by lack of proper medical intervention.

    14. Re:No antibiotics for me by selven · · Score: 1

      You don't have the concept of routine annual medical checkups?

    15. Re:No antibiotics for me by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      While there are routine screenings of debatable effectiveness for breast, prostate, colon, and skin cancer you are usually out of luck when in comes to less visible organs.

    16. Re:No antibiotics for me by winwar · · Score: 1

      "You don't have the concept of routine annual medical checkups?"

      Routine annual checkups are, generally speaking, a waste of money. Widespread screening for uncommon disease leads to overtreatment. Overtreatment not only wastes money but it can harm (and kill) you. This should not be confused with a diagnostic test.

      The really difficult part is finding a proper balance. Breast cancer is a good example. For people with no risk factors, routine screening over 50 is a good idea (Costs and harms of screening are outweighed by benefits of cancers found). Under 40 is a bad idea (Costs and harms of screening are greater than cancers found). Between 40 and 50 it is debatable (Costs and harms are probably greater than cancers found). But if you had a lump at any age, you would get tested (a diagnostic test).

      In any case, if you have the flu or a cold and can go to the doctor, you don't need treatment (generally the people most likely to seek medical treatment are the least likely to need it). In most cases, most issues resolve on their own quickly. General non specific issues are almost never treated until they become serious because they are so general. Going to a doctor generally won't help for those, especially if you have other issues that could explain it. For instance, chronic fatigue in a fit 20 year old may be significant. Fatigue in a obese, smoking, workaholic, 50 year old, not so much...

    17. Re:No antibiotics for me by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      I hope you never get cancer. If you finally go to the doctor when you fell like you on death's door, it will be too late. If caught early enough, most cancers are easily treatable.

      Yes, but 95% of the time the Doctor tells you it's just a mole. Even if 10% of the time it's cancer.

      People need to be more aware of their bodies. Started feeling shitty a year ago? Got strange moles popping up? You need to get them looked at - and be extremely pushy if your Doctor is apathetic.

      My mother got warned by her Chiropractor that her moles looked cancerous. She went to her doctor and bullied him into referring to a specialist. Two malignant melanomas later - thankfully cut out in time - she seems to be doing okay.

      Be aware of your body and how you feel, and be aware that people are not infallible. Always get a second or third opinion if something worries you.

      P.S. BC (Canada) healthcare blows. 5 months to get malignant melanomas removed. Screw you Ontario, with your 1 week wait times.

    18. Re:No antibiotics for me by udippel · · Score: 1

      I seriously need to disappoint you: You missed the point.

    19. Re:No antibiotics for me by udippel · · Score: 1

      we didn't test for allergies, so we had lots of unexplained deaths in infants. Nowadays, kids are assessed for allergies pretty much on birth, so we can avoid exposing them to allergens rather earlier

      "Don't expose them to life", is that what you mean?

    20. Re:No antibiotics for me by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Antibiotics alone won't get rid of anything, you have to have a (at least partially) functional immune system to get rid of an infection. An antibiotic dose that'll kill every bacterial cell on its own will kill a human as well. So getting antibiotics doesn't harm your immune system at all, since it's still exposed to whatever bug made you sick. Sanitizing the water supply and food is what lowers our exposure to random bacteria and while it saves many lives it does seem to make allergies worse.

      But, in any case, getting antibiotics for an infection isn't what's causing most resistance. The real problems are the worried mothers who won't leave without an antibiotic for their child's viral illness, the schmucks that stop their antibiotics early because they feels better, and the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals. Hunter gatherers are a lot better off than most people think they are, but it's our population density and international travel is what puts us at higher risk of disease, so it's not a fair comparison.

    21. Re:No antibiotics for me by dryeo · · Score: 1

      P.S. BC (Canada) healthcare blows. 5 months to get malignant melanomas removed. Screw you Ontario, with your 1 week wait times

      Hey, be happy. The rich people have got a nice new highway to the skiing and one hell of a party once they get there. Since they are rich we get to pay the bills so of course there is no money for health care. Billion for security, 1/2 a billion for limos and such and so on. There even showing unprecedented generosity in letting ordinary people buy 30% of the tickets.
      Gutting our health care to pay for it is a privilege, same with paying HST and tolls on every road that doesn't go somewhere useful like the ski hill.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    22. Re:No antibiotics for me by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

      I just graduated medical school, so I have at least some authority on the subject, but I plead with people to go to the doctor at least every 3-5 years even if you never get sick. If you have even a halfway competent family doctor he will know what tests and exams to perform so that he can detect things that when things get serious, it isn't too late. For example, if you wait until you pass out from a diabetic coma, you're already well into diabetes, where instead if you have some minor symptoms and are found to have insulin resistance you can make some dietary changes so that you never have diabetes. If you have moderately elevated high blood pressure (but don't know about it because you never went to the doctor) you are putting undue stress on your organs. There are dozens of similar problems that most people shrug off as nothing but when taken together can point to a potential serious problem or complication.

      However, like the poster below mentioned, if you have the common cold or even influenza just stay home so you don't infect everyone you come into contact with. The likelihood that you will come and see me in time for tamiflu to do anything is pretty small, and I'm not really convinced it makes much difference anyways.

    23. Re:No antibiotics for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless I feel like I'm at death's door, I do not go to the doctor.

      I hope you never get cancer. If you finally go to the doctor when you fell like you on death's door, it will be too late. If caught early enough, most cancers are easily treatable.

      well my father had that attitude @ i wish he had learned to take an asa before his first heart attac then they gave him the wronge anasetic i go two times a week an you create antybody just keep your hands clean an reamber doctors are not god but they do there best an you have to shop around to know what agood doctor is you dont bring your car to aney mecanic so why would you let any doc take care of you one day somebody will couffe in your face then you ll have to take your dection witch will be good or bad for you just be enfomed an go talk to a doc just to get a feeling for the person in front of you your simpley mortal too

    24. Re:No antibiotics for me by thomasdn · · Score: 1

      ...and I know it's why Western kids have lots of strange allergies.

      Citation needed.

  8. I, for one... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    regret the defeat of our former microbial underlords.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  9. Hey!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, here is another thing we haven't thought much about. I don't know how it would affect us, but it could be, like, super heavy important.

    1. Re:Hey!! by linhares · · Score: 1

      Hey, here is another thing we haven't thought much about. I don't know how it would affect us, but it could be, like, super heavy important.

      yeah dude like they have been with us for millions of years and they do lots of stuff we don't know well and there are plenty of interaction effects and... Well I could go on, but there's so much village idiot bait one can take per day.

  10. mother nature by mikey177 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this is why we need to let our children interact with other people and go out and play in the dirt. I did and let me tell you, I do still get sick but not as much as some of my friends who had lived sheltered lives with there parents who thought that every little cold they got they would need to go to the doctors to be treated for it. we now live in a world with Sissies who can't take life's discomforts like there parents.

    1. Re:mother nature by bretticus · · Score: 1

      And get off my lawn!

      Anyway, I look forward to your RCT comparing not being a sissy to placebo.

    2. Re:mother nature by value_added · · Score: 1

      this is why we need to let our children interact with other people and go out and play in the dirt.

      Common sense would also suggest we should let them play with animals as well as dirt. It's the adults who didn't have any pets as kids that suffer from pet allergies.

    3. Re:mother nature by adbge · · Score: 1

      Not only interaction with other people, but animals too.

    4. Re:mother nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is why

      This

      who had lived sheltered lives with there parents who thought that every little cold they got

      1. their
      2. This sentence sounds like a run-on after the 2nd subordinant clause starting with "who."

      it. we

      We

      with Sissies

      sissies. Last I checked, "sissy" isn't a proper noun, except to some people who like shemales or what-have-you.

      like there parents.

      their

      So what you're saying is that:

      1. Being feminine is bad (or whatever you meant by "Sissy" [sic]).
      2. Playing in the dirt makes one masculine.
      3. ...
      4. Even the girls will be manly men among men! Profit!
    5. Re:mother nature by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      I had TB & polio as a kid, and when I was hospitalized I acquired a massive staff infection with huge open sores, all this BEFORE the widespread adoption of penicillin! I was moved to Kings county general where I was given massive doses of the (then) fairly new antibiotic.

      In short, don't knock modern medicine, your grandparents who didn't have it suffered terribly without it!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    6. Re:mother nature by PotatoSan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, y'know, it could just be that people with pet allergies tend to not have pets because of their allergies.

    7. Re:mother nature by thewiz · · Score: 2, Funny

      we now live in a world with Sissies who can't take life's discomforts like there parents.

      Apparently, they also cannot spell like their parents did, either.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    8. Re:mother nature by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Informative

      this is why we need to let our children interact with other people and go out and play in the dirt. I did and let me tell you, I do still get sick but not as much as some of my friends who had lived sheltered lives with there parents who thought that every little cold they got they would need to go to the doctors to be treated for it. we now live in a world with Sissies who can't take life's discomforts like there parents.

      Exactly.

      People are too clean these days. It sounds stupid, but it's true. Folks need to go outside and play with some animals, socialize, fall in the dirt, scrape their knees, and get on with life. It's good for you! It helps build up your immune system.

      Got to your local supermarket or WalMart or whatever... Take a look through their kitchen goods - absolutely everything has some kind of anti-microbial agent built-in. I'm not suggesting we all go lick some raw chicken... But a few germs are actually good for us. And sterilizing everything is not.

      Look through the bath section... All the soaps are antimicrobial as well. All of them. Just getting yourself clean isn't enough... You have to nuke whatever critters might be around.

      And, not only are we nuking anything and everything that we might be exposed to - thereby robbing ourselves of a chance to build up an immunity... But we're also flooding the environment with these antibiotic/antimicrobial substances - giving those very critters plenty of opportunities to develop their own immunities.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    9. Re:mother nature by ATairov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lies. I had pets when I was a kid and I'm still allergic to them.

    10. Re:mother nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the adults who didn't have any pets as kids that suffer from pet allergies.

      Source?

      I know a number of people who had pets as kids who suffer from pet allergies. They had pets (dogs/cats) from birth right up until they left home -- at which point they suddenly felt a LOT healthier.

      Add to this that you can have allergies to things that are actually bad for you. Exposure at a young age is not always the solution -- exposure to bacteria that can help you combat the specific rejection reactions between the ages of 6 months and 1 year generally IS a good idea.

    11. Re:mother nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look through the bath section... All the soaps are antimicrobial as well.

      Ivory Snow. Fels Naptha.

    12. Re:mother nature by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      I remember a story on the news some time ago--I don't remember when, but it would have been at least five years ago and probably closer to ten--that claimed that washing your hands with (regular) soap and hot water was almost no different than washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap in terms of killing bacteria. So in addition to all of the negatives of using so much anti-bacterial crap in general, it's entirely possible it's not even making a difference in how "clean" you are.

    13. Re:mother nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All the soaps are antimicrobial as well. All of them"
      I'm pretty sure this is a property of soap. Maybe I'm wrong.

    14. Re:mother nature by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      washing your hands with (regular) soap and hot water was almost no different than washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap in terms of killing bacteria.

      So you could look at it another way, then. If washing your hands gets rid of more bacteria than the supposed antimicrobial agent, then all the people complaining about the supposed evils of antimicrobial soaps are falling for a red herring. If antimicrobial agents aren't really what's getting rid of the bacteria, then antimicrobial agents can't be creating this race of super-bacteria that people suppose they are (or whatever the fear is about). Rather, they're just a marketing gimmick designed to sell soap. Ignore them and buy the soap that you think smells the best on your hands, or that lathers the best, or whatever other property of soap you desire. The antimicrobial agents may not be helping anything, but they're not really hurting anything, either.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    15. Re:mother nature by phision · · Score: 1
      As for the antibacterial soaps - they are effective only for a certain type of bacteria. The result is that these soaps kill around 10% of the bacteria on your hands. The only effective way of getting rid of bacteria is with alcohol - which would kill around 90% of the bacteria on your hands. A simple explanation here:

      http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/cleansing/myths/question692.htm

    16. Re:mother nature by terryducks · · Score: 1

      All the soaps are antimicrobial as well. All of them

      Really ? How do you explain "Ivory Original Bar Soap". Cheap too.

  11. Another easy solution! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just dismiss any investigation of it as backwards or some form of vapid tree-hugging, don't study it, and ignore any problems until peoples' expected lifespan returns to 35!

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Another easy solution! by schon · · Score: 4, Informative

      peoples' expected lifespan returns to 35!

      When exactly was our lifespan 35?

      Or are you just demonstrating that you suck at math?

      Here's a mental exercise for you:

      Say you have 1000 people. 499 of them die before they turn one year old. 499 of them die at the age of 70. Two of them die at the age of 35.

      What is the average lifespan? At what age did most of them die?

      Our "average lifespan" has been increasing because we're eliminating infant mortality, not because most people only lived to some ridiculously low age.

    2. Re:Another easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any citations? I agree with your argument, but I've only heard it from second hand accounts. Data would be helpful.

    3. Re:Another easy solution! by linhares · · Score: 1

      When exactly was our lifespan 35? Or are you just demonstrating that you suck at math? Here's a mental exercise for you: Say you have 1000 people. 499 of them die before they turn one year old. 499 of them die at the age of 70. Two of them die at the age of 35. What is the average lifespan? At what age did most of them die? Our "average lifespan" has been increasing because we're eliminating infant mortality, not because most people only lived to some ridiculously low age.

      beyond me how you got modded troll

    4. Re:Another easy solution! by spiffydudex · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Our "average lifespan" has been increasing because we're eliminating infant mortality, not because most people only lived to some ridiculously low age.

      Or we are not considering abortion as infant mortality anymore.

    5. Re:Another easy solution! by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Norman Borlaug - "saved more lives than anyone who has ever lived".

      I see your Norman Borlaug and raise you Thomas Midgley - "Midgley had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history".

    6. Re:Another easy solution! by PenisLands · · Score: 0

      You're a penis master. Listen to me, that person used the number 35 only because the person they were replying to used that number first and was also a master cocker, one who was skilled with the penis. Is this because you suck at reading comprehension?

    7. Re:Another easy solution! by proficiovera · · Score: 1

      You guys must of flunked Sunday school! Everyone knows people used to live to be hundreds of years. After the flood god switched to Windows and the max lifespan became 120. Most people don't make it to 120 due to lack of user maintenance.

    8. Re:Another easy solution! by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our "average lifespan" has been increasing because we're eliminating infant mortality, not because most people only lived to some ridiculously low age.

      Life expectancy is always stated with a starting age, e.g. at birth, at age 5, at age 18, etc.

      Life expectancy at birth obviously goes up rapidly with lower infant mortality. Life expectancy at age 5 just as obviously depends on other factors. Our current life expectancy at all age levels is the highest it's ever been. In other words, you just demonstrated that you suck at actuarial rates.

    9. Re:Another easy solution! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Given that something like 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to make it to term,(either failing to implant or spontaneously aborting due to some embryonic defect), many too early to be detected as pregnancy without sophisticated tests, counting prenatal mortality into the mortality statistics would give you a virtually useless number, from the perspective of somebody who has already been born.

      The statistical effect of counting medically-induced abortions would be quite minimal compared to that of totting up all the spontaneous ones(particularly since, contrary to the myth of irresponsible sluts using abortion as birth control(who do exist, I'm sure, in small quantity; but you have to be a real idiot to endure surgery instead of contraceptives), abortions are fairly heavily skewed in the direction of lower-viability embryos.)

    10. Re:Another easy solution! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You mean like the average lifespan in Afghanistan was (in the 80s) at 35 (and probably still is)?
      You can guess the *cough*cold*cough* main *cough*war*cough* reasons for that. ^^
      (My father is Afghani, so I think I know this. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    11. Re:Another easy solution! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I realize you enjoy posting that, but nobody even implied people only lived to 35. If infant mortality is very high then your expected lifespan (at birth) might indeed be 35. If sanitation is very bad, there is generally very high infant mortality. As we are born with less and less protective bacteria, it is not unreasonable to investigate whether infant mortality might again start to increase.

    12. Re:Another easy solution! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      There may be some truth to this but there have been some estimates that the average life expectancy will drop because we're in a transitional phase where we eat shit and sit around too much and our bodies aren't really made for that. While it won't drop to 35, there are things that effect it on the other side.

    13. Re:Another easy solution! by schon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any citations? I agree with your argument, but I've only heard it from second hand accounts. Data would be helpful.

      You can find some data for the US broken down by age, sex, and (partially) race here.

    14. Re:Another easy solution! by AnotherUsername · · Score: 1

      It still is. There are guys there who look like they are in their 60s or 70s, but are actually only in their late 20s or early 30s.

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    15. Re:Another easy solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      average != expected lifespan... chief...

      valid point about averages... sheds zero light on the calculation of expectancies...

    16. Re:Another easy solution! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      peoples' expected lifespan returns to 35!

      When exactly was our lifespan 35?

      Or are you just demonstrating that you suck at math?

      Same to you buddy. He specifically said expected lifespan. Google "expected value" and you might redeem yourself in the eyes of Logos.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    17. Re:Another easy solution! by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, an expected value is an average.... an expected value is the first moment of a probability distribution.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    18. Re:Another easy solution! by mikael · · Score: 1

      Anthropologists compared the lifespan of native jungle inhabitants who live in places like the Amazonian forest and have not had contact with our lifestyle. From their research, village elders are lucky to reach 40. Though the causes of death could be down to accidents with poisonous creatures, injury from falling objects, or change of diet due to dental decay.

      But with all the antibiotics put into animals and household products along with UV and heating methods for sterilization, that is going to have some effect on the need for species like macrophages that feed off bacteria directly.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    19. Re:Another easy solution! by udippel · · Score: 1

      I really like your last sentence "As we are born with less and less protective bacteria, it is not unreasonable to investigate whether infant mortality might again start to increase."
      Maybe infant mortality will not start to increase, though, but our grandkids will have (or need) regular infusions as 'standard procedure' to prevent that from happening? That is, moving away from a healthy and natural balance ever further?

    20. Re:Another easy solution! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly. I'm definitely not saying we're all doomed, but it might be prudent to do a little research to at least see which direction we're going. The original poster's point was that just because we've got things pretty good right now (as judged by life expectancy) that doesn't mean our choices might not come back to haunt us later.

      If we are going to need some sort of standard treatment in the future (or we want to act to avoid that) we're going to need some time to develop them.

    21. Re:Another easy solution! by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Seems to work for global warming.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  12. They're very useful... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The presence of neutral microbes offers resource competition against random microbes taking up residence, especially harmful ones.

    Since there is competition, new Microbes of any sort, are less likely to flourish unchecked, than if there was no competition.

    Think of how many computer users would be using MacOS or Linux KDE, if Windows didn't exist, or if Microsoft were to suddenly drop dead and stop making new versions of Windows that were successful at competing for placement on people's computers.

    The loss/extinction of some of these neutral, or even beneficials microbes could be quite bad, if it makes humans more vulnerable to spontaneous intrusion by others and digestive system issues.

    The less diversity in the neutral microbes... the more likely that a malicious microbe releases one toxin that happens to kill them all.

    1. Re:They're very useful... by Cwix · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lol you just equated Macs and Linux to harmful microbes, id hunker down and wait for the down modding from mac and linux mods, but you may just recieve positive mod points from the windows fanboys. On a side note, can you kill windows with antibiotics?

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:They're very useful... by udippel · · Score: 1

      On a side note, can you kill windows with antibiotics?

      No need, it usually dies on its own.

    3. Re:They're very useful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antibiotics do not work on a virus.

  13. Fake 'Science' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't believe a word of it, unless you buy the stock or are a patent holder.

  14. No facts by sgt101 · · Score: 1

    Reading the original article, I notice a complete lack of facts. Were there any statistics about relative declines in gut flora in various populations? Or particular flora that are disappearing.

    I find the hypothesis pretty unlikely to be honest, but that can be a good thing in hypothesis... if someone can start presenting some facts to back it up.

    --
    --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
    1. Re:No facts by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yes, that struck me too. For Scientific American, I thought it was pretty weak. A bunch of conjectures and a scary conclusion. We are changing our gut flora, but it is an open question as to whether or not this is a bad thing. Certainly we should avoid over prescribing of antibiotics, but we knew that.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  15. 100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The human body has some 10 trillion human cells--but 10 times that number of microbial cells.

    That supposed total of 110 trillion cells overall weigh about 150 pounds. Are the microbial cells really something like 1% the weight on average of a human cell? 100 trillion microbial cells seems hard to believe.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by glwtta · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are the microbial cells really something like 1% the weight on average of a human cell?

      Yes, they are. See Procaryote vs Eukaryote.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Think back to high school, doc. Remember the parts of a human cell?

      One of 'em, the mitochondria, is essentially a specially-evovled bacteria used to help your cell produce energy. It's easily less than 1/10th the size of the whole cell. Maybe 1/20th, or even 1/100th, for very big cells.

      And not all cells are the same size. You have some cells in your body that stretch for the better part of a yard, and if you're a woman you produce one certain cell every four weeks or so that's almost big enough to be seen with the naked eye.

    3. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      Are the microbial cells really something like 1% the weight on average of a human cell?
      Yes, they are. See Procaryote vs Eukaryote.

      It's a small world after all.

    4. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      In this cell/microbe zoom, it looks like bacteria are generally smaller than human cells, but not 1%. Viruses are much smaller, though. But they're not "cells".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by c0y · · Score: 1

      This is a good place to recommend Bonnie Bassler's talk at TED.

      She points out that not only are the human cells in our body outnumbered 10 to 1, but if we count DNA, the human DNA is outnumbered 100 to 1 (I suspect on account of mtDNA though she doesn't say that).

    6. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1
      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      The size graph on the wikipedia article linked above suggests up to four orders of magnitude of size difference and that suggests 1% could be a very typical number. But far be it for me to suggest that anybody read the fucking articles linked from the posting they are replying to.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    8. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      ...and if you're a woman you produce one certain cell every four weeks...

      I had heard that she produced them all when she was forming in the womb, and slowly shed 1 at a time every four weeks.

      The implications of this is that when you first began your independent existence as a cell, you were in your mother's ovaries when she was developing in your grandmother's womb.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    9. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one way to (not) think about a mother-daughter threesome.

    10. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Viruses are much smaller, though. But they're not "cells".

      Good point. Also, potatoes are much larger, and also not "cells" (and just as relevant).

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    11. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by loxosceles · · Score: 1

      I most certainly was not in my mother's ovaries. Only slightly more than half of my nuclear genetic material was there, and since *I* am defined primarily by my consciousness, there is no way *I* could exist anywhere before the 2nd or 3rd trimester; more likely I began existing sometime after birth, probably between ages 1-3. Mere electrical signals in the brain do not equal consciousness.

      Although it still seems accepted that a woman's supply of eggs is in most cases fixed at birth, there's some evidence that under certain unusual conditions new eggs might be able to be formed.

    12. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a good definition of origin of self-consciousness, but I think if you want to talk about your very first existence as an independent organism ( and we're dependent on the web of life throughout our entire existence, from our mother's care and nurturing to the plants and animals we eat ) would be when the egg cell that became you first formed.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    13. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How is an egg with only 23 of the 46 chromosomes that make a human, plus a mitochondrion, equivalent to a human? It doesn't even have all the genetic info required to be a human. And it certainly isn't an independent organism by any definition, even if eating and nurture by other organisms conflicts with your definition of independence.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Where would you say an independent existence as an organism begins?

      When the egg cell is fertilized? If this were your answer, consider that , even though it has 46 chromosomes, it has no other cells, no cell differentiation, no tissue, no organs, anything. How can a single cell be equivalent to a human? If not there, at what point then?

      There is no such thing as an independent organism.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    15. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      When the umbilical cord is cut from the baby after birth, it's an independent organism.

      I didn't say a fertilized egg is an independent organism. I merely pointed out that an unfertilized egg is not, to rebut your statement that it is.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    16. Re:100 Trillion Microbial Cells? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is that a human as a separate organism originates from the 'fetus' organ from a woman's body? Makes sense. ( What if the fetus is born, the cord is not cut, but the placenta is delivered? Still not a separate human? The placenta can just hang around and break off all by itself, you know.)

      But still, if you wanted to trace the ultimate origin of an individual human to a single cell, I still think that egg cell is the best candidate, even though it passes through the fetus-organ-in-woman's-body stage.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  16. Farewll then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    midi-chlorians

  17. Eat at White Castle by kurt555gs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Consuming a few "sliders" will re-populate lots of gastro-intestinal things.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Eat at White Castle by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Consuming a few "sliders" will re-populate lots of gastro-intestinal things.

                  Great idea, with one minor issue - projectile diarrhea kills more people each year than AIDs.

             

    2. Re:Eat at White Castle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you meant that projectile diarrhea kills the projecter. But I had a funny image in my head of the death of a projectee.

    3. Re:Eat at White Castle by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though. Fecal transplants are known to be a very effective treatment for C. Diff infections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy

      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Eat at White Castle by chip_s_ahoy · · Score: 1

      He meant what he meant. Don't try to nice it up with interpretation. BAM! Projectile Slider Diarrhea upside yo head! Leavin' a big ol' spat mark!

    5. Re:Eat at White Castle by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty horrible way to do, from either potential perspective!

    6. Re:Eat at White Castle by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to use the phrase "projectile diarrhea" in print.

  18. mod parent up by bussdriver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Parent is correct in pointing out this basic failure to recognize the problem with averages in statistics.

    In addition, abortions can also be counted as early deaths.

    We already save many that would naturally die which has skewed the average even further. If the technology froze, one would expect the average to go down as the genetic defects live long enough to reproduce and increase the defect rates possibly leading to complications medicine can not fully counter.

    Just think about it -- a dominant defective trait allowed to continue leads a large demographic of people (or all humans) who have some sort of defect that requires advanced technology to continue the species... The makings of an interesting science fiction story?

    1. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does abstinence figure into the equation . . . every little sperm is sacred.

    2. Re:mod parent up by schon · · Score: 1

      abortions can also be counted as early deaths

      Not for the purposes of determining life expectancy.

      At the stage abortion is legal, a fetus is not (legally) a human being, and so would not be included in life expectancy calculations.

    3. Re:mod parent up by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Just think about it -- a dominant defective trait allowed to continue leads a large demographic of people (or all humans) who have some sort of defect that requires advanced technology to continue the species... The makings of an interesting science fiction story?

      Wasn't that part of Aeon Flux? Using cloning because all the remaining humans were infertile.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  19. My BS meter is going off. by MattSausage · · Score: 1

    This summary is suggesting that our bodies house 110,000,000,000,000 cells total? Why do I find that hard to believe? 110 TRILLION?? really? Could i see some math on that please?

    1. Re:My BS meter is going off. by pydev · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wet mass of an E. Coli cell is about 1 pg (pico-gram), or 10^-12 g. So, 110 trillion cells is about 100g of bacteria (1/5th of a pound); most of those are in your gut, the rest on your skin and mucous membranes. (The insides of your body are sterile for the most part.)

    2. Re:My BS meter is going off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I find that hard to believe?

      Because you have a 2-digit IQ.

  20. NOOOOES by hldn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    NOT MY MIDI-CHLORIANS!!

    --
    http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  21. How will this affect the Colon Cleansing Industry? by electricprof · · Score: 1

    *GASP* I shudder to think how this will affect the growing colon cleasing industry. Will it be destroyed or will the industry adapt with new "microbial ecosystem replacement" products?

  22. The US by CAIMLAS · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Obviously the USA - whether they knew it or not - is 100% to blame. We should tax them and redistribute the wealth to those less fortunate to make up for it.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:The US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an interesting conclusion, and while I certainly agree 150%, I also disagree 110%. North Korea is obviously 260% to blame here. The only 180% reasonable conclusion is bombing 120% of them until they convert into an enlightened (100^8%) capitalist democracy.

    2. Re:The US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      capitalist democracy

      That's an oxymoron.

    3. Re:The US by dragonturtle69 · · Score: 1

      Wow, +2 and Troll. I think the MODS don't get sarcasm.

      --
      "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
    4. Re:The US by CAIMLAS · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, not at all.

      But they're still going to get taxed.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    5. Re:The US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sarcasm doesn't translate well into text. there is no diffinitive tone to give away how the message is being delivered.

  23. Fits in with the Hygiene hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Hygiene hypothesis postulates that the seeming rise in food and other allergies and auto-immune diseases like Crohn's coincides with the rise in hygiene in the developed world.

    The immune system evolved in an environment with many more challenges from both symbiotic and parasitic organisms. Excessive hygiene shifts the equilibrium towards the immune system attacking itself.

    If fact, Helminthic therapy has shown promise in Crohn's. Infecting patients with parasites or the killed eggs of parasites give the immune system something to chew on other than your own mucosa.

  24. Repopulating in your local microbal ecosystems by kowala · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a good a reason to breed your own microbes contained within Home brewed Beer and Wine, Sauerkraut, Kim-chi, Sourdough, and Kombucha. http://www.wildfermentation.com/ And set the stage for microbal growth in your local farm soil ecosystems, by participating in and supporting organic agriculture.

  25. Yes, let me restate for the hopelessly stupid. by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, for all of the hopelessly stupid people out there. If you feel like you are sick and you don't have a cold, go to a doctor to find out what it is. If your lymph nodes stay swollen for some reason, go to the doctor. If you have unexplainable pain, go to the doctor. When you get to a certain age, turn and cough. However, if you come down with the sniffles, suck it up and don't run to get Tamiflu and antibiotics shoved up your ass just because.

    Christ almighty. I hope they never take the warning labels off small electronics. Otherwise you'll probably end up trying to use your Bagelator in the bathtub.

    1. Re:Yes, let me restate for the hopelessly stupid. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Actually, I hope they DO reverse the warning label trend, so we can finally weed out all of the idiots that would stick a butter knife into a toaster to retrieve the toast, for example.

      If we're lucky, it would weed them out before they had a chance to breed.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    2. Re:Yes, let me restate for the hopelessly stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they never take the warning labels off small electronics. Otherwise you'll probably end up trying to use your Bagelator in the bathtub.

      I strongly advocate removing the warning labels from small electronics. I don't want anyone who would use a Bagelator in the bathtub in my gene pool. The punishment for stupidity has gotten way too soft in the last 100 years.

    3. Re:Yes, let me restate for the hopelessly stupid. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      To be fair, that's a much more reasonable statement than your original "unless I feel I'm at death's door, I do not go" statement. The first thing you wrote could have meant "I treat my ulcers, strange pains, and broken limbs myself, as I don't think they are life-threatening" when said by someone sufficiently eccentric.

    4. Re:Yes, let me restate for the hopelessly stupid. by mpe · · Score: 1

      However, if you come down with the sniffles, suck it up and don't run to get Tamiflu and antibiotics shoved up your ass just because.

      Antibiotics are of no use in treating viral infections. The are more likely to be counter productive, since the most likely result of taking them is gastric upset and associated fluid loss.

  26. Actually it's both for average lifespan. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the average longevity is only going up because of fewer early adult deaths. Longevity only considers those that reach adulthood.

    Basically you are flat out wrong. The maximum expected age hasn't moved much. The rates of death for all younger years has been going down for many centuries.

    The 99th percentile may have always lived about the same length of time. The 50th percentile are living much longer now.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  27. Pushing your neighbor off the cliff. by westlake · · Score: 1

    I hope you never get cancer. If you finally go to the doctor when you fell like you on death's door, it will be too late. If caught early enough, most cancers are easily treatable.

    You could say the say the same for hundreds of other life-threatening conditions. Swine Flu among them. But the contagious disease makes you a danger to everyone.

    1. Re:Pushing your neighbor off the cliff. by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      Man, I had a bout of swine flu last week - it was awful. I felt like death warmed over for four days, and had a miserable Christmas. Of course, I didn't get a flu shot, even though the Canadian health system is practically begging you to go. I regret not doing that now. But in general, I think Canadians and Americans have pussified their immune systems. When I visit the Philippines, I have to avoid raw vegetables, tap water, and ice. And that's even though I always bring a good supply of Immodium for when the eventual bout of deadly diarrhea hits. But the natives eat anything, anywhere, and never get sick. Clearly, their bodies have stronger or more complex immune systems than people from Canada/the US. And you can lose that strength; my wife came to Canada from the Philippines more than 30 years ago, and when she goes back now, she has to watch what she eats as well. It's funny; my grandmother used to tell me "A little dirt never hurt anyone" if I dropped an apple on the ground, but my mother was a fanatic about having an almost sterile cooking environment, and wouldn't shop at some grocery stores because they were "too dirty". Unintended consequences?

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    2. Re:Pushing your neighbor off the cliff. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      The natives from the Philippines would have the same trouble if they came here. It's not that your immune system is 'weaker' it's that the flora in various ecosystems differs from location to location. You've adjusted to water in the US. If you travel abroad you may find you have trouble with the native bacteria as you're not used to it. Typically adjusting takes longer than your standard vacation.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    3. Re:Pushing your neighbor off the cliff. by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      The natives from the Philippines would have the same trouble if they came here.

      Quite wrong. My brothers-in-law, their wives, and my nieces visit from the Philippines all the time, and never have the slightest bit of trouble. Similarly, I have travelled all across Europe, and to Australia, and never had any problems there either. The difference is our water treatment systems eliminate a lot of bacteria, as do those in most advanced countries (I didn't have a problem with the local water in Hong Kong or Seoul either).

      I live in Toronto. We get a surprisingly large number of immigrants from Africa. My elder daughter goes to school where approximately 20% of the students come from Somalia. They have complained to her about adjusting to the cold, to not being able to find their native foods, to having to adjust to North American culture, but she never once has told me that they all got sick when they first arrived.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
  28. Soap vs Santizers by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems that most products advertised today pull on the "santize everything you touch" FUD that's out there. I work at a large technology company, and they recently installed automated hand sanitizers by every external door. I read an article recently that claimed that EMC was having cleaning crews sanitize every doorknob in their campus once a week.

    This isn't just a corporate activity, I've got a friend with a 5yr old son in that the son has been conditioned to ask mom for Purel every 5-10 minutes. I also find it funny that kids are being taught to eat a McDonald's burger by holding the wrapper. The funny part is that the people making the burgers aren't wearing gloves...

    Reminds me of the old joke: A Harvard and MIT student, both just finished using the urinal and the MIT student walks towards the door. The Harvard student says, "Hey, at Harvard they teach us to wash our hands after using the urinal!" The MIT student fires back, "At MIT they teach us not to pee on our hands!"

    1. Re:Soap vs Santizers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid joke. Fresh pee is sterile but dicks aren't.

    2. Re:Soap vs Santizers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And neither realized that urine is sterile.

    3. Re:Soap vs Santizers by moortak · · Score: 1

      I was taught to eat it with the wrapper so that you don't risk leaking condiments.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    4. Re:Soap vs Santizers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ive heard this joke before and I dont get it. My college didnt teach us anything about using the restroom. I'm guessing that they just assumed that we knew how to do that sort of thing.

      Come to think about it high school to elementary school also did not cover this material. Maybe such a thing was covered in preschool ... I really cant remember.

      Anyway, if Harvard and MIT feel that they need to cover this type of thing for their students, then I really dont understand why people claim that these are very good universities.

    5. Re:Soap vs Santizers by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      It's "really" a joke about different branches of the US Military. In the "classic" version of the joke, a Navy Seaman or Air Force private is urinating with a Marine. The Marines are seen as tough, practical fighters, and the USAF/Navy is seen as a dainty group that doesn't like to get dirty.

      "In the marines, they teach us not to piss on our hands."

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    6. Re:Soap vs Santizers by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

      "In the marines, they teach us not to piss on our hands."

      And the Air Force guy says "They didn't need to teach us that. We learned that around age 3"

    7. Re:Soap vs Santizers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That joke is hilarious, but it isn't the pee you should be washing off (being sterile and all) it is the bacteria that live in your crotch area. It is not like it will kill you (cunnilingus, fellatio, etc) , but you might have some stomach discomfort if you get some of those bacteria in your food.

    8. Re:Soap vs Santizers by jbengt · · Score: 1

      That joke reminds me of the Don King biopic, where he follows a boxer around the men's room trying to talk him into signing with him. After Don King urinates, and they go to shake hands on on the deal, the boxer looks askance (I forget most of the dialog) and Don King says "I wash my hands before I touch my dick." After which you realize, he had washed his hands first.

    9. Re:Soap vs Santizers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the way I heard it. It was marines vs. army -- the gist of it being that the marines, unlike the army, had recruits smart enough to be taught something like "don't piss on your hands." The army's criteria back in the draft days were just a bit more than "can you carry all this shit on your back, and run where you're told to? Okay. You're in."

  29. Probiotic supplements by dave562 · · Score: 1

    In the past we got a lot of the microbacteria that our bodies need from our food supply. With the invention of herbacides, fertilizers and various other modern farming "advancements", the food supply has become less diverse. The digestive system is one of the first lines of defense for the immune system. Anyone who is concerned about their digestive health can start with a good probiotic supplement. I like Jarrow Labs EPS probiotic. There are many others on the market though.

    1. Re:Probiotic supplements by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0

      Or go eat some dirt. If you really want the stuff you would have gotten from the food supply, don't go ask some pharmaceutical company for some pills, go eat some dirt. It's cheaper, and you don't sound like an infomercial talking about probiotic supplements.

    2. Re:Probiotic supplements by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

      more fun than eating dirt: mud wrestling with members of the opposite sex (or same sex, if that's the way you roll)

    3. Re:Probiotic supplements by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The side dishes and details of preparation and presentation are entirely up to the individual.

    4. Re:Probiotic supplements by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Or go eat some dirt.

      This is a very good idea. I support it 100%. Why eat a specific strain of bacteria (like Lactobacillus) when you can eat a billion non-harmful and potentially useful bacterial strains and let your immune system sort them out? Most people are not equipped to tell which strain their intestines lack. Eating lactobacillus for the heck of it will likely do more harm than good, as far as "balancing" your intestinal flora goes.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    5. Re:Probiotic supplements by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I would make one suggestion: raw dirt can be pretty sandy and gritty. So putting a spoonful in a glass of water, stirring, and drinking everything but the sludge might be easier to hold down.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    6. Re:Probiotic supplements by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If you even get any active bacteria. Wasn't it Danone that just got slapped because someone actually tested their "probiotic" yogurt and found that there weren't any active cultures in it anyway?

    7. Re:Probiotic supplements by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that stuff specifically marketed as probiotic.

      Unpasteurized yogurt and sour cream "ought" to contain lactobacillus, in the sense that if you find an unpasteurized container of milk or cream that doesn't contain lactobacillus, you are un/lucky. You can make yogurt, sour cream, or cheese (add salt and rennet to the conceptual recipe) by mixing a cup of yogurt or cream with a gallon of freshly boiled milk or cream and leaving it on the counter overnight (or a few days). I have done that before, it's pretty fun and tasty.

      My friend was once freaked out when I told her sour cream was "alive" and that it actively resists spoilage. Indeed, it tends to get "more sour" as it ages. She calmed down when I compared it to yeast in beer (which also actively resists spoilage in unpasteurized beers).

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    8. Re:Probiotic supplements by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      And what makes you so sure that your particular dirt will actually have useful bacteria in it? The problem here isn't just that people aren't consuming from the same sources they used to, it's that sometimes those things just don't have what they used to in them. There is a serious lack of evidence to your medical theory "modern dirt has everything you need". Whereas even conservative sources like the NIH have been compelled to note the growing evidence that probiotics are useful for digestion issues.

      In any case, the situation around one of the specific bacteria mentioned in the article is much more controversial: h. pylori disappearing is not necessarily a bad thing. And given that the common transmission vectors are oral-oral or fecal-oral, if you wanted more, unless you're using dirt that people shit in regularly you'd be better off with some kissing instead.

      Note that the GP's specific suggestion, the Jarrow Labs EPS, is crap. I'm taking Nature's Way Primadophilus Optima probiotics, which has almost an order of magnitude more bacteria when new and includes the food the little buggers live off of in the tablet too. >10 bacterial stains, >25M CFUs when new, and bundled FOS are the minimums I look for in a good quality probiotic. Nobody is quite sure which of the bacteria are responsible for what yet, so a shotgun approach works better than a focused one here.

    9. Re:Probiotic supplements by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow. My "medical theory 'modern dirt has everything you need'?" Are you serious?

      Reading on, I see that you're not. "the Jarrow Labs EPS is crap. I'm taking Nature's Way Primadophilus Optima probiotics."

      So yeah. Another infomercial.

    10. Re:Probiotic supplements by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Hint: supplement "infomercials" don't come with links to suggested reading material, including lists of relevant clinical studies, from sources like the NIH. I've read several of those, selected a product based on the best information available, and gave a quick summary of why I thought it was a good one. Your [citation needed] suggestion was to eat dirt for "the stuff you would have gotten from the food supply"--now that's unsupported infomercial talk.

      I look forward to the future clinical results of your research, showing the positive impact of repopulating internal bacteria through dirt consumption. Until then I'll stay with the probiotics.

  30. Wait! Is there 10 x more "not-me" than "me" in me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait! Is there 10 x more "not-me" than "me" in me?

    "The human body has some 10 trillion human cells—but 10 times that number of microbial cells."
    So it's like we are all parasites of microbial colonies?

  31. Time to panic!! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    We needed another crisis, gotta get that government program in place.. appoint a 'microbe czar'... raise our taxes.. save us!!

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  32. Of cycles and balances... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    I am someone, who always seeks to find simple rules that describe complex mechanisms and patterns. And if there is one all-encompassing mechanism in nature, that can be described by simple rules, it’s that of the cycles and balances.
    In our bodies, as in all of nature.

    See, they are complex systems of interacting cycles, that are in perfect balance.
    If you change something... anything... no matter how small it seems... it influences the whole cycle. Then it can create a feedback loop. And it can spread to related cycles. And so on, and so on...
    Until in the end, it falls into another less perfect balance... or everything dies.

    Until now, we always had luck, since the cycles often had good fallback mechanisms that made them still run stable for decades.
    A good example for the body, are most of those “age-related” diseases. They don’t come because of old age. They come with old age. They are the reason for a not-so-stable cycle/system that starts to fail after decades. So nearly nobody links them to the original cause. Usually it’s caused by pushing a cycle out of balance for decades.

    The exact same thing happens on a global level with nature. The machine slowly fails. But since the duration between action and punishment is no extremely slow, and since we humans learn by association, we do not learn from our misbehavior.

    And later, we go to the doctors, let them give us tons of pills for everything, and even the doctors tell us the lie, that “it’s just because you’re old”. (Mind you, that of course there are some things that really are because of old age. But e.g. gout and hair loss definitely aren’t.)

    Also until now, it did not affect our ability to reproduce. So it really did not matter that much.
    But in the last years/decades, infertility rates rose dramatically, and the overall effort to keep ourselves alive and (in the illusion of being) “healthy” rises and rises.
    I once extrapolated a graph of those infertility rates, and by my prediction, if it does not flatten out somewhere, all humanity will be unable to reproduce in around 3 generations.

    I just hope we will notice, until it’s too late. But I don’t expect everyone to notice. Natural selection will finally do its job again. :)

    So I decided, to also become a hacker on another level. To hack world’s most advanced machine: The human body.
    So that even if most of humanity goes down the drain, I (my genes any my ideas) will be one of the few, who will be left.
    And I think for people like us here on Slashdot, who pride themselves in being so good with such complex machines, that would be the ultimate mastery, wouldn’t it?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Of cycles and balances... by ErikZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      I ran the numbers on the growth rate of a puppy. In 100 years it will be too large for the solar system and will destroy it.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  33. Re:How will this affect the Colon Cleansing Indust by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    I take it you never heard the radio ads for "nature's healthy trinity" (an intestinal flora repopulating capsule product consisting of three bacterial lines that you'll find in most brands of yogurt.)

    In fact many brands of yogurt contain five beneficial bacterial lines and are a fine way to repopulate your gut if the antibiotics (or "colon cleansing") have thrown the population out of balance.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  34. Mostly Harmless by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The vast majority of bacteria are either harmless or beneficial to their human host. Only a very small number of bacteria are pathogenic, and most of the time your body does a great job keeping those out. Here's a great book for bacteria spotters, amateur and pro, which tells you how to find bacteria without a microscope.

    http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=3864
    http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Bacteria-Comstock-Book/dp/0801488540

  35. George Carlin thread! by symbolset · · Score: 2, Funny

    We swam in the Hudson..." (video)

    R.I.P. funnyman.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  36. I have an evolutionary advantage then.. by azgard · · Score: 1

    I work in IT. We don't bathe too often.

  37. Want to start an irresponsible internet rumor? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    This causes autism. Run with it, crazy rumor mill. I expect to see this in the news when I wake up Monday morning.
    By Wednesday, parents will be mixing dirt into cereal and formula in the hopes of increasing microbial ppm.

  38. Codex Alimentarius, it is in the food... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What is going on was planned, and it is an old plan.

    7 of the 9 deadly persistent poisons are being reintroduced.

    Subclinical antibiotics are mandatory for production farm animals.

    Watch Food Inc. and know that even it does not cover it all.

    The top youtube video has a MD named Rima Laibow talking
    about Codex and What it means and it is now law world
    wide in over 150 countries.

    The warning was sounded years ago.

    Proof that what she says has been happening is seen
    in the film Reversing Diabetes in 30 days.

    We are all being slow killed on purpose, and the proof
    is in this post, and if you want to stick your head in the
    sand and think Rule #1 of the Georgia Guidestones
    is some kind of Hoax then you will meet you fate
    earlier than most.

    Good Luck to you all !

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    1. Re:Codex Alimentarius, it is in the food... by moortak · · Score: 1

      The top youtube video is charlie bit my finger again. That finally overtook the evolution of dance which held that title for a long time. Antibiotics are used, but not required. I smell a troll.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    2. Re:Codex Alimentarius, it is in the food... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Qui bono?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  39. cemetaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Go visit older cemeteries that are pre 20th century. Much higher infant mortality rate and so on, but still a lot of old people who lived comparable ages to old folks now. That higher infant mortality rate plus more women dying in childbirth ran down the raw numbers. Another major cause of skewed statistics are wars, where dis-proportionally younger stronger males still succumbed, possibly really altering what would have been the real numbers due to health concerns.

    Not to say modern medicine hasn't helped, sure it has, just the issue is more complex than just old days-die younger, modern days-die later.

  40. Re:How will this affect the Colon Cleansing Indust by electricprof · · Score: 1

    Whew! Another global catastrophe averted!

  41. The Five-Second Rule... by jbezorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...now has scientific backing. Go ahead, pick up that chip that fell on the floor and eat it. When someone gives you a look, just tell them you are maintaining a healthy microbial diversity.

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  42. Thank God, Free software hero RMS by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    "With rapid changes in sanitation, medicine and lifestyle in the past century, some of these indigenous species are facing decline, displacement and possibly even extinction."

    is unlikely to be affected.

  43. Probiotics recommended by MD by Bhrian · · Score: 1

    Trying out a new doctor (an MD), they interviewed me a bit and when they heard I'd been on a bunch of antibiotics recommended I purchase a three month supply of probiotics. They also recommended I drop taking allergy drugs after being on the priobiotics after a few weeks. A few weeks later, no more allergy symptoms and no need for allergy drugs any more. This doctor actively reads and publishes in medical journals, but it still surprised me that they recommended probiotics.

  44. Re:Wait! Is there 10 x more "not-me" than "me" in by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

    More like the reef structure built up by the coral maybe?

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  45. Re:How will this affect the Colon Cleansing Indust by udippel · · Score: 1

    I shudder to think how this will affect the growing colon cleasing industry.

    Huh? When I do colon cleansing, there are no antibiotics or stuff involved. How would that affect this industry?

  46. What about climate change? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Surely climate change is at least partially responsible for this impending crisis of gastric proportions.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  47. They need to do way instain host by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    They need to do way instain host> who kill their bactreia. because these bactreia can't frigth back? It was on the news this mroning, a host in mi who had kill her three billion bactreia . They are taking the three billion bactreia back to ann arbor too lady to rest my pary are with the bactreia who lost its cell divsioins ; I am truely sorry for your lots

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  48. Re:mother nature-My Uneducated Thoughts by dragonturtle69 · · Score: 0

    Just to put out my unscientfic, uneducated on the subject thoughts, but don't you have to survive the infection? An extreme, and possibly poor example, compare the affects of smallpox on Native Americans and Europeans after 1700 or so. The Native Americans, with no ancestral exposure to smallpox or cowpox were devastated by smallpox when exposed, while the Europeans were less affected.

    So, do I want to be exposed to someone's unwashed filth, knowing that it will make be stronger, if it doesn't kill me? Do I want to transfer it to my car or my home, maybe intentionallly expose my family to it, just to make them stronger? In the comparison of the Native Americans and Europeans in the 1600 - 1900's, the less clean Europeans won, but how many lives did that genetic immunity, if there is such a thing, cost?

    In the end, cleanliness is cultural, and might just be another case of "Play Now, Pay Later".

    Getting back on topic, I doubt that washing whatever gets upon my hands in the restroom, or from using the keyboard of a coworker with snot dripping from his nose, impacts my favorable gut bacteria much. Alcohol consumption, and not replenishing them with cheeses or yougurts, stuff like that is what leads to their decline.

    --
    "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
  49. When lifespan was 35 by physburn · · Score: 1
    Average lifespan topped up to 35 in England between 1500 and 1700, on those good years, where there wasn't much plague around, infant and childhood mortality rates where horrifically high there.

    ---

    History of Medicine Feed @ Feed Distiller

  50. How many useful bacteria there? by physburn · · Score: 1
    While most of the bacteria are harmless and some help us by using up all the resource a more virulent bacteria might use. I wonder if there are any useful bacteria, maybe even some essential ones. I except soon enough will be drinking genetically engineered probiotics containing bacteria specially designed for specific medical tasks. Its far safer and easier to engineer a bacteria than it is to change the human DNA, and if these bacteria can safely do there job in our skin or guts, why risk modifying human DNA.

    ---

    Microbiology Feed @ Feed Distiller

  51. Overreaction? by AniVisual · · Score: 1

    I personally do not opine that there will be worrying change in our microbial ecology. Westerners have been consuming acidic foods for ages, including acidic tea, acidic coffee, acidic meat, and more recently, acidic soda. These foods alter the pH of our digestive tract, and correspondingly, our microbial ecology. But hey, we've survived. It can't be worse than an explosion in obese people, can it?

  52. connection? by jflaishans · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there could be a connection between a decline in certain microbial life that could correlate with an incline in the rate of autism. just a thought I had...

  53. Not really surprised by mrdtr · · Score: 1

    Nowadays it seems everyone has become a germaphobe. Hand sanitizers in every office, school, many homes. Then there are all the fungicides, pesticides, anti-virals, and antibiotics, that we are consuming whether intentionally or not.
    And speaking of antibiotics it seems everything is tainted with them, one of the most common is Triclosan. Here is a list: http://drbenkim.com/articles/triclosan-products.htm You might be surprised at some of the products that it's in.

  54. Re:How will this affect the Colon Cleansing Indust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That post says waayyyy too much...

  55. The Nah Nah Nah Rule. by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    "If I deny, it don't apply." So you force your Assistant Mayor Equivalent to drink Cholera...

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  56. More orgies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need more orgies